Anyone who knows what legal analysis and argument looks like -- anyone who knows the requisites of legal reasoning -- must look at the ( handiwork) of Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in the NSA case in amazement. It is a pathetic piece of work. If it had been submitted by a student in my second year legal writing class at the University of St. Thomas Law School, it would have earned a failing grade.

On the issue of the legality of warrantless interception of enemy communication, for example, it is entirely conclusory. It does not address precedent. It assumes its conclusion, framing the issue as whether the president can break the law. It simply asserts that the NSA eavesdropping program is "obviously in violation of the Fourth Amendment" -- apparently because it is warrantless. (Wrong.) She sagely observes that the "President of the United States is himself created by that same Constitution" -- you know, the one with the Fourth Amendment that she apparently thinks requires warrants in all cases.

Judge Taylor is like the big bad wolf in the fairly tale. She huffs and she puffs. I think she's facing the brick house that can't be blown down -- she at least can't blow it down -- but the end of this unedifying fairy tale has yet to be written by a higher and presumably more competent authority.

Who's afraid of Anna Diggs Taylor? I'm afraid of Anna Diggs Taylor and the rest of these liberal judicial meatheads who are going to get a lot of innocent Americans killed through their "no clue" rulings that are hamstringing the government in the war on terror !!!

In a shocking reminder of why Democrats should never be entrusted with power at any level, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit ruled that a surveillance program utilized by the Bush Administration in the war on terror is unconstitutional.

Who in the hell is Anna Diggs Taylor? And how in the name of all that is decent and righteous can an obscure federal judge unilaterally shut down a vital intelligence tool used by the U.S. Commander-in-Chief while the nation is at war?

As it turns out, Judge Taylor worked on Jimmy Carters presidential campaign in 1976 and was sworn in as a federal judge to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in 1979.

So, Anna Diggs Taylor was elevated beyond her capabilities during the administration of one of the worse presidents in U.S. history. Why does that fact not come as a great surprise?

Twenty six years after We the People booted the bumbling Jimmy Carter out of the Oval Office, his legacy of incompetence comes back to haunt America and all of the civilized world. Like a very bad penny, Jimmy Carter keeps coming back.

Does September 09, 2001 ring a bill, Judge? What about the plot uncovered in the United Kingdom last week in which terrorists were in the final stages of unimaginable mass murder? A plot, by the way, which was discovered and dismantled in cooperation with U.S. intelligence authorities?

If Judge Taylors ruling ultimately stands, then it is point, match and championship for the terrorists. Osama bin Laden, with an assist from the Lady in Black from Detroit, will have trumped G.W. Bush, the American people and the cherished principles upon which this great nation was founded 230 years ago.

And history will note, probably in Arabic, that Islamic fascism prevailed in the war on terror because of an abuse of judicial power by a female terrorist sympathizer in a black robe, sans only the burka.

When the core of your reasoning does NOT come from the Constitution, or any embodiment of case law, almost anything can be argued as 'legal'. Judge Taylor is working from an agenda, backwards from the premise, "Bush is WRONG."

I wouldn't want this woman interpreting the rules of the game of Monopoly, let alone acts of the Administration.

12
posted on 08/18/2006 7:16:11 AM PDT
by alloysteel
(My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling, but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places.)

Y'all should download her ruling and take a look at it. From the first page (emphasis mine):

This is a challenge to the legality of a secret program (hereinafter "TSP") undisputedly inaugurated by the National Security Agency (hereinafter "NSA") at least by 2002 and continuing today, which intercepts without benefit of warrant or other judicial approval, prior or subsequent, the international telephone and internet communications of numerous persons and organizations within this country. The TSP has been acknowledged by this Administration to have been authorized by the Presidents secret order during 2002 and reauthorized at least thirty times since.

I'm no lawyer, but I seem to recall a ruling by the FISA court that warrants were used (after the fact) for the intercepted calls.

But don't forget one fact,it's NOT just Anna Diggs Taylor.The Federal Court system is loaded with people with the same mindset.This time it's Anna Diggs Taylor,next time it'll be another lib.The systems broke and it's time to fix it while we still have a chance !!!

I hate to be a stick in the mud, but is there any Freeper here who is willing to see this ruling in terms of civil liberties, rather than just a security issue?

I'm just asking is all. If the NSA wanted to confiscate the firearms of anybody they wanted to using the same sort of process, there'd be any number of Freepers claiming the Second Amendment as an absolute right, and its abridgement prima facie tyranny.

The thing to remember is this: If they can do it to anyone, they can do it to you.

Now, fellas, proceed to shoot that argument down without calling me names. I posted it specifically for you to refute.

23
posted on 08/18/2006 7:29:51 AM PDT
by Oberon
(As a matter of fact I DO want fries with that.)

Privacy is a false argument and has been for some time. Your insurance company and the credit bureaus have more on you than the feds do and you can do nothing about it. I would rather be secure knowing that the feds were looking over my shoulder and keeping me safe. I have nothing to hide, and in times of war, these steps are necessary.

It doesn't matter if it gets overturned , it gives a-holes like Pelosi and Kennedy a chance to get up and say the President violated the Constitution. We all know that this idiot Carter appointee will be overturned, but the Libs get to kick the President until it is. When it is overturned it will probably be posted in the want ads of all the MSM press.

No, she is political. This is not her first attempt to write law from the bench. Here is what I wrote for another local forum:

"Ill begin with a brief bit on why this doesnt matter. District Courts in 5 of the 11 districts had previously ruled that programs similar to the NSA terror listening program were legal. As late as last week in US v Rosen a federal District court ruled such program legal based on precedence. In addition 4 appeals court decisions and 1 Supreme Court opinion all supported the President. The body of case law was clear and definitive.

So, what do we have? We have the ACLU judge shopping for a political judge to make a ruling based on personal opinion and ideology and not the law. As desired the judge did exactly that. Fortunately, the 6th has a reputation for generally following the law and Constitution so I expect this to be killed on appeal pretty fast.

With that said, the question becomes why, as in why rule in a manner sure to be overturned? The answer is simple .nothing is sure in the Courts. Perhaps the Appeals Court will have a bad day or some member will be absent or ill and the court rules to uphold the decision. If so it Goes to the Supremes and they are infamous for making it up. The 20% chance the appeals process will uphold is therefore, worth the effort. Besides, the Judge gets her name in lights and the old media makes hay for a few days.

What was wrong with the decision lots apparently. The best spin I read on it today was that the opinion was legally thin, meaning based on little. The bits about the 4th seem to ignore all previous case law and the most reversible bit is the issue of standing. Judge Taylor simply dismissed the issue as having little merit. That will be the reason for reversal if the appeals court does not want to make waves.

Now the question should be..why do I say the ACLU Judge shopped and why is Judge Taylor considered a political judge?

That is easy, it was widely reported the ACLU spent a good bit of time finding a case in just the right location before just the right sympathetic Judge. The Judge was considered sympathetic (partisan) because she has a track record. She previously cook the books to rig a Civil Rights case having to do with affirmative action. She was caught out and received a good bit of publicity and a chastising by the 6th Circuit.

So, what do we have when all is said and done, a decision by a partisan judge that will almost certainly be overturned and that is one decision out of about a dozen at the federal level on the issue. It keeps the anti-American left with an argument (until reversed) and the old media with water to carry in the real war, the war against Bush."

29
posted on 08/18/2006 8:07:58 AM PDT
by Jim Verdolini
(We had it all, but the RINOs stalked the land and everything they touched was as dung and ashes!)

'going to get a lot of innocent Americans killed through their "no clue" rulings'...

I feel the same......this "judge" is placing me, my family and millions of other Americans in danger.

I pray some activist organization begin a movement against her.....hopefully, either get her off the bench or force our "esteemed" legislators to use the authority they have to stop and reverse the dangerous judicial rulings that can harm the U.S. and her citizens.

I'm afraid of Anna Diggs Taylor and the rest of these liberal judicial meatheads who are going to get a lot of innocent Americans killed through their "no clue" rulings that are hamstringing the government in the war on terror !!!

She's not that powerful. This ruling will have as much effect on the WOT as what I eat for lunch today. Her amateurish opinion has opened her up to ridicule -- and not just from the political Right.

If your aunt had balls , she'd be your uncle. Why argue the if's when life and death are at stake. I don't think the government has the time to waste on everyday conversations of law abiding citizens. What a boring job.

....look at the ( handiwork) of Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in the NSA case in amazement. It is a pathetic piece of work. If it had been submitted by a student in my second year legal writing class at the University of St. Thomas Law School, it would have earned a failing grade.

Uh, well no kidding. Anna Diggs Taylor is a poster child for the Democrat version of affirmative action.Lower the standards far enough and Anna Diggs Taylor is what you get.

Wel, until she is overturned, the Left media and the Dems will crow and lie and Bush and the GOP will suffer in Nov. That is simply the truth because people take in lies first and then with few dissents from the Admin. and what is the Conserv media, the wussy public just believes that Bush and the war on terror is , well, you know, made up!!!

Sorry you misunderstood. I was not arguing for a "benevelent dictator" but rather while we are arguing the if's, they are making plans to KILL. I for one do not worry about the "mythical someone" listening in on my conversations because I don't think they would find them interesting nor would they gain any knowledge about terror. You seem to be more worried about the "rights" of a murderer than protecting my children.

Listening to a montage on Limbaugh today , it was one reporter after another loudly calling this a BIG DEFEAT for..fill in the blank.. (Bush) ..(the Bush administration)..etc etc.

I'm taking bets..that when this is reversed by the 6th Circuit..and it will be.. if precedent is followed..you won't hear those same reporters loudly proclaiming it a BIG WIN for (Bush) ..(the Bush administration).

If the NSA wanted to confiscate the firearms of anybody they wanted to using the same sort of process,

Depends on what you mean by "anybody they wanted"; I refer you to the 4th Admn: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,"

If the NSA was snatching arms from citizens running guns to Hezbollah.... ... I and certainly the courts would consider that a "unreasonable" seizure.

48
posted on 08/18/2006 12:58:37 PM PDT
by TeleStraightShooter
(The Right To Take Life is NOT a Constitutional "Liberty" protected by the 14th Amendment)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.